People v. Hughes
| Decision Date | 09 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. E012801,E012801 |
| Citation | 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 653,32 Cal.App.4th 1745 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Previously published at 32 Cal.App.4th 1745 32 Cal.App.4th 1745 PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Roy Thacton HUGHES, Jr., Defendant and Appellant. |
A jury found defendant Roy Thacton Hughes, Jr., guilty as charged in count 1 of possession of psilocybin (Health & Saf.Code, § 11377, subd. (a)); in count 3 of transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf.Code, § 11379, subd. (a)); and in count 4 of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf.Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The jury found Hughes guilty of possession of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) (Health & Saf.Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) as a lesser included offense to the charge in count 2 of possession of LSD for sale. The jury found true the special allegation that Hughes was personally armed with a firearm in count 3 (Pen.Code, § 12022, subd. (c)).
The trial court sentenced Hughes to the middle term of three years for count 3 plus a consecutive low term of three years for the firearm enhancement. The court imposed concurrent terms of two years each for counts 1, 2, and 4.
On appeal, Hughes contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for transportation of methamphetamine; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for acquittal on count 3 under Penal Code section 1118.1; (3) he should not have been convicted and sentenced for both transportation and possession of the same quantity of methamphetamine; (4) the trial court abused its discretion in allowing his impeachment with a 16-year old robbery conviction; (5) the trial court gave erroneous instructions as to the firearm enhancement; and (6) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the true finding as to the firearm enhancement.
At about 10 a.m. on March 5, 1992, Riverside County Sheriff's Deputies Minard and Pearson went to a trailer home in Oak Glen. 1 Three or four people were present, including Hughes, who opened the door to the deputies. After a few minutes, Hughes asked Minard if he could leave. Minard agreed to let him leave, but then accompanied him outside "to talk with him a little bit."
Minard asked Hughes how he had arrived. Hughes pointed to his pickup truck in the driveway a few feet from the trailer. Minard asked if he had any narcotics, and he said no. Minard asked for and received permission to search the truck.
Hughes opened two closed toolboxes on the truck for Minard. Minard found no contraband in the toolboxes. Minard asked Hughes to stand in front of the truck while Minard searched inside the truck. Minard told Hughes he could stop the search at any time. When Minard opened the unlocked driver's side door, he asked Hughes if there were any weapons in the truck. Hughes replied that there was a gun in a briefcase on the passenger seat. Minard opened the briefcase and removed a loaded .44 magnum revolver and a box of shells for the revolver.
Minard also saw a nylon pouch in the briefcase. Inside the pouch, Minard found several one-inch plastic baggies which contained what appeared to be psilocybin, methamphetamine, marijuana, and LSD. Later testing confirmed the contraband nature of the substances found. The briefcase contained intimate personal documents and other papers addressed to Hughes.
Hughes told Minard that the gun was his, but the drugs were not. Minard arrested Hughes for possession of narcotics and possession of a loaded firearm.
Minard questioned Hughes, and Hughes told him he owned the gun, but not the drugs or the briefcase. When asked who the drugs belonged to, he said, " " He then said he was going to take responsibility for the drugs.
Deputy Minard testified he did not know what time Hughes had arrived at the trailer home, and did not know if he had driven the truck that day. For all he knew, "that truck could have been there for a week."
At the close of the People's case-in-chief, Hughes's counsel moved for acquittal on count 3 under Penal Code section 1118.1. He argued the evidence was insufficient to establish when the narcotics had been placed in the truck. The court denied the motion.
Defense. Hughes testified in his own behalf. He stated he had been present when the deputies arrived. When he attempted to leave, Minard asked to look in his truck. He testified the briefcase in the truck was his. He had the handgun in the briefcase because he intended to go shooting later that day.
The pouch containing drugs that was found in his briefcase did not belong to him, and he did not put it in the briefcase, although he had seen it before and knew who owned it. He did not know it was in his briefcase. When Minard opened the pouch, Hughes said the drugs were not his when he saw a baggie containing marijuana. He testified that if he told who owned the drugs, his life might be in danger. He later stated the pouch belonged to his girlfriend's cousin Sean. He did not like Sean because Sean and his friends were "like long-haired druggies." He had seen the pouch sticking out of Sean's pocket the night before at a barbecue. Hughes had left his truck unlocked and people at the barbecue had been sitting in the cab and in the bed of the truck. Sean had left the pouch in the back of the truck before. On cross-examination, he testified he had arrived at the trailer about 10 minutes before the deputies arrived. He met one of the occupants outside the trailer. The other occupant was inside sleeping. Hughes never saw anyone near his pickup.
Hughes contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction of transportation of methamphetamine. In his reply brief, he adds the contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to for acquittal under Penal Code section 1118.1.
When a criminal defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction, this court " 'must view the evidence in a light most favorable to respondent and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' " (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738.) The court resolves the issue based on the entire record and determines whether there is substantial evidence as to each of the essential elements of the offense. (Id. at p. 577, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738.)
"The crux of the crime of transporting is movement of the contraband from one place to another." (People v. Kilborn (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 998, 1003, 87 Cal.Rptr. 189.) Possession of contraband is not evidence of transportation. The prosecutor must show that contraband was moved from one place to another and must connect the defendant to that movement. (Id. at pp. 1002-1003.) The prosecutor must also show the defendant's knowledge of the presence of the contraband. (People v. Rogers (1971) 5 Cal.3d 129, 133-134, 95 Cal.Rptr. 601, 486 P.2d 129.)
Hughes testified on cross-examination that about 10 minutes before the deputies arrived at the Oak Glen address, he had driven there alone in his pickup truck. He had his briefcase in the pickup. When he arrived, he walked over to one of the trailer's occupants, who was outside. He saw no one near his pickup. The drugs were found in Hughes's briefcase in the pickup.
The People contend Hughes's testimony was sufficient evidence to support his conviction for transporting methamphetamine. It was not necessary that the officers themselves saw Hughes driving the truck. The fact of his driving the truck containing the drugs in the briefcase was established by reasonable inferences based on Hughes's testimony.
Hughes cites Kilborn, supra, 7 Cal.App.3d 998, 87 Cal.Rptr. 189 to support his argument that the evidence was insufficient to show transporting. Kilborn is distinguishable on the facts. In that case, the defendant had reported to the San Diego sheriff that he had been robbed of $7,000. The defendant called the sheriff at 6 p.m. At 8:30 p.m., sheriff's officers searched the defendant's unlocked hotel room and found LSD in his suitcase. (Id., at p. 1001, 87 Cal.Rptr. 189.) The defendant was convicted of transporting LSD. On appeal, the court held the evidence was insufficient to support the transportation conviction, because there was no evidence the defendant had carried the LSD anywhere. (Id., at p. 1003, 87 Cal.Rptr. 189.)
In Kilborn, unlike in this case, a significant amount of time elapsed before the search. The defendant called the sheriff at 6 p.m. The deputies searched his unlocked hotel room at 8:30 p.m. It was plausible that someone else could have entered the room in the intervening time.
Here, Hughes testified he had arrived at the Oak Glen address only 10 minutes before the deputies arrived. The evidence showed that during that time, no one else had been near his pickup. The jury could reasonably infer that the drugs found in the pickup had been transported there by Hughes.
After the prosecution presented its case-in-chief, Hughes moved for acquittal on the transportation count on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. (Pen.Code, § 1118.1.) The court denied the motion.
"The test to be applied by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial